<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2017 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'title' => 'The dishonest utility company strikes again',
	'body' => <<<END
<section id="general">
	<h2>General news</h2>
	<p>
		I went into the utility board both to pay my bill and to get them to fix my mistaken &quot;overdue&quot; balance.
		Apparently there&apos;s a note on my account though.
		It says the till came up short when they recounted, and they claim to think I underpaid.
		So basically, they can retroactively change how much I&apos;ve paid them at any time and receipts mean nothing.
		Furthermore, if a cashier steals from the till, I can be blamed, and there&apos;s no remedy.
		Joy.
		Last month, the cashier counted my money in front of me.
		I <strong>*know*</strong> I paid the right amount!
		If this happens again, you can bet I&apos;ll try to fight them over it, but this week, I&apos;m not sure I have the time.
		My work schedule&apos;s in flux, so today might or might not be my only day off this school week.
		They have a monopoly in the area too, so it&apos;s not like i can just go to a different utility company for my electricity needs.
	</p>
	<p>
		My <a href="/a/canary.txt">canary</a> still sings the tune of freedom and transparency.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="university">
	<h2>University life</h2>
	<p>
		My reading assignment for the week is as follows:
	</p>
	<ul>
		<li>
			<a href="https://aof.revues.org/489">The local in the global - creating ethical relations between producers and consumers</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s16-01-two-kinds-of-advertising.html">Two Kinds of Advertising</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s16-02-do-ads-need-to-tell-the-truth.html">Do Ads Need to Tell the Truth?</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s16-03-we-buy-therefore-we-are-consum.html">We Buy, Therefore We Are: Consumerism and Advertising</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s16-04-consumers-and-their-protection.html">Consumers and Their Protections</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s16-05-case-studies.html">Case Studies</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s17-01-what-kind-of-business-organiza.html">What Kind of Business Organizations Are There?</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s17-02-three-theories-of-corporate-so.html">Three Theories of Corporate Social Responsibility</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s17-03-should-corporations-have-socia.html">Should Corporations Have Social Responsibilities? The Arguments in Favor</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s17-04-should-corporations-have-socia.html">Should Corporations Have Social Responsibilities? The Arguments Against</a>
		</li>
		<li>
			<a href="http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s17-05-case-studies.html">Case Studies</a>
		</li>
	</ul>
	<p>
		I wrote up my main discussion post for the week:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			As the proprietor of a casino, I profit from the misfortune of others.
			My entire business is to trick people out of their money using false hope.
			Of <strong>*course*</strong> I feel responsible for what my business is doing to them!
			When you run a shampoo company, you still take money from your customers, but you provide them with something real: a cleaning product.
			When you run a digital music business, your product might not have substance, but your customers know what they&apos;re getting and they want it.
			However, casinos thrive by making people think they&apos;ll spend a little to win a lot, but they actually end up spending a lot to win nothing.
			Casinos act as parasites to the community.
			The case study this week says that the victims of casinos often go off and rob people because of the difficult situation the casinos put them in.
			When your business thrives on misfortune, it&apos;s only natural that further misfortune not directly caused by your business will be indirectly caused by the damage your business caused.
			Yes, these people did it to themselves, but the casino only continues to thrive <strong>*because*</strong> people do this and they <strong>*encourage*</strong> people to continue to do so.
			As a casino owner, am I guilty for the misdeeds of my victims?
			Am I responsible for the victims of my victims?
			I guess it&apos;s possible to argue that I&apos;m not guilty, and a pretty strong case could be made for that.
			However, as someone that actually has a heart, yes, I&apos;d feel incredibly guilty and responsible.
			I&apos;d feel responsible to my victim, my victim&apos;s victim, and the community as a whole.
			I&apos;d pull my money from my casino and set up a more-reputable business, one that actually serves and improves society instead of leaching off and degrading it.
		</p>
		<p>
			Technically speaking, the victims of casinos are only the victims because they allow themselves to be tricked out of their money.
			Anyone that actually thinks through the situation and has a basic education should be able to resist the allure of a casino.
			While the casino is a parasitic leach and should feel like such, the actual blame for problems caused rest strictly with those that foolishly gamble and those that actually commit crimes.
			Because of this, I don&apos;t think anyone representing the casino should be suable, unless they&apos;re sued for false advertising or something else that they&apos;re actually and technically guilty of.
			The fact that the casino may be run by a partnership-charity that builds schools and gives gratis lessons doesn&apos;t figure into the equation at all.
			Doing evil is doing evil, regardless of if good is done too in an effort to try to &quot;counterbalance&quot; the evil.
			A duty-based ethics should forbid evil, while a consequence-based ethics should should see that the harmful effects are still in place, regardless of any good done in the process.
			Casinos should come with huge warning labels like tobacco products do in the United States, and the misleading advertisements should be disallowed.
			However, apart from that, casinos really act only as a catalyst, encouraging negative actions without actually engaging in them themselves.
			It makes it very difficult to actually pin anything on a casino, even though the casino owners know very well the damage they&apos;re causing.
		</p>
		<p>
			As said above, regardless of the situation, they shouldn&apos;t be able to sue unless suing for damages actually caused by the casino.
			On the other hand, if suing for false or misleading advertising, they should only be able to sue either the casino/company itself or the people in charge of approving the advertisements.
			As a holder of five shares, I have no say in what the company does.
			Therefore, I shouldn&apos;t be suable and shouldn&apos;t be blamable.
			I&apos;m not the one that bought the shares either, they were inherited from a relative, so it&apos;s not even like I wanted to invest in the casino or in any way actually did do any investing.
			At most, I think it&apos;d be arguable that I should sell off the shares to cleanse myself of the company and not profit from the misfortune of others.
			As a share holder of a casino, I would, after all, be profiting from misfortune.
			Even then though, my only obligation to sell the shares stems from a conflict of interest.
			When the casino profits, I profit, but when the casino profits, society suffers.
			Keeping the shares puts me in a very conflicted state.
		</p>
		<p>
			Pigouvian taxes present a very interesting situation.
			If companies had to pay for their damages, they&apos;d try to reduce their negative impact.
			I think this could be highly effective against certain types of problems companies cause.
			For example, what if environmental harm was assigned a dollar amount?
			Most companies would probably go green to their fullest extent possible.
			Because their sole purpose is to make money for share holders, they&apos;d be <strong>*obligated*</strong> to try to get out of these taxes by reducing the harm they cause.
			But what about casinos?
			Because casinos are solely parasites, reducing the harm they do <strong>*also*</strong> reduces their profits.
			If the tax is lower than the profit, it won&apos;t have any effect on the casino&apos;s business tactics.
			However, if the tax is higher than the profit, the casino has to shut down.
			There&apos;s no middle ground.
			They&apos;re no option for a casino that doesn&apos;t harm society.
			To be clear, a casino can help society, for example by participating in public projects, but it <strong>*cannot avoid also hurting society*</strong> while remaining in business.
			As we can&apos;t use Pigouvian taxes to get casinos to lessen their own damage, can we at least use Pigouvian taxes to make up for the damages?
			It&apos;s hard to say, and depends on what all we take into account.
			Casinos are known to cause robbery, aggravated assault, and rape.
			Can we measure the value of stolen belongings?
			In most cases, probably.
			But what about the damage of going without those items until they&apos;re paid for and replaced?
			That&apos;s a bit harder.
			Additionally ....
			Can we put a dollar amount on stolen, cherished belongings?
			Can we put a price tag on the damage caused by rape?
			Pigouvian taxes seem like a good deterrent to causing damage.
			They also seem like a decent way to offset damage when damage is purely monetary.
			However, the damage done by casinos goes beyond what I think Pigouvian taxes can help with.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<p>
		I got about half the reading done, but I&apos;d been planning to complete it all along with my essay for the week.
		I slacked off more than I should have, but it&apos;s been a while since I&apos;ve had a day off.
	</p>
</section>
END
);
